Nothing cannot exist

[Wesrock]

STT, it seems like you are trying to say that the universe is it’s own reason for existence, but I do not see how that could be true. If the universe has not always been, it could not give itself a reason to be. You have to ditch the idea that the universe had a beginning, for one, perhaps construe time as an illusion and the universe as one 4D object that simply is eternally and that there is no such thing as change. But we still seem to run into the issue that the universe is not the same thing as existence. It has existence, but it is composed, it is extended, it is ordered in such and such a way, and there is no reason within itself to be any of these things as opposed to being a different way. Furthermore, is it proper to consider it even as a whole?

In effect, it seems non-sensical to argue that the universe had a reason for its existence (which has to be the assumption if you’re even trying to make a syllogism to explain why it is) when other factors about the which’s and why’s have no reason.

Furthermore, you never established that it is a contradiction for everything to not-be.

 

[STT]

No, I mean 3.

Then I don’t understand what do you mean with “but the implication you are drawing from it, that therefore there can be no cause upon which the universe is dependent, is not demonstrably true and there is no reason to accept it as true.” since all I am saying in this premise is that there is no point before the beginning point.

The bolded part is the issue. Sure, there cannot be a cause temporally before because there is no before. However, a temporally-before cause is only one type of cause, not all causes are temporally-before. Nor are all causes discrete. There are things that continue to be so only because an external force continually acts. A scholastic would view an ontological dependence as a type of causation. Saying it does not need a cause is also not demonstrated by your point.

I know that there are non temporally cause too but what this have to do with my argument. In short, all I am saying in this argument is that the universe exists at the beginning hence it doesn’t need a creator therefore its existence is necessary.

 

[Wesrock]

Then I don’t understand what do you mean with “but the implication you are drawing from it, that therefore there can be no cause upon which the universe is dependent, is not demonstrably true and there is no reason to accept it as true.” since all I am saying in this premise is that there is no point before the beginning point.

Okay, see, you are leaving something unsaid. Yes. There was no point before the beginning. So what? You must have an implied conclusion to this point, because if not it’s even more of a flawed syllogism than I thought.

I know that there are non temporally cause too but what this have to do with my argument. In short, all I am saying in this argument is that the universe exists at the beginning hence it doesn’t need a creator therefore its existence is necessary.

The bolded part… you’re not demonstrating this. This is the implied part of premise 3 that I’m objecting to. It is not supported by anything.

 

[STT]

STT, it seems like you are trying to say that the universe is it’s own reason for existence, but I do not see how that could be true…

That is true because the universe has a beginning which means that it does not need a creator hence the existence of the universe is a reason for its existence.

The necessity of existence is derived from necessity of existence of universe.

Furthermore, is it proper to consider it even as a whole?

Well, yes, if it is the only universe. That is true because things need to have forms hence they at lease need space.

In effect, it seems non-sensical to argue that the universe had a reason for its existence (which has to be the assumption if you’re even trying to make a syllogism to explain why it is) when other factors about the which’s and why’s have no reason.

This is covered in the first comment.

Furthermore, you never established that it is a contradiction for everything to not-be.

Well, that is easy if we can agree on my argument.

 

[STT]

Okay, see, you are leaving something unsaid. Yes. There was no point before the beginning. So what? You must have an implied conclusion to this point, because if not it’s even more of a flawed syllogism than I thought.

From (3) one can conclude that there is no temporal cause before the beginning.

The bolded part… you’re not demonstrating this. This is the implied part of premise 3 that I’m objecting to. It is not supported by anything.

No, the bold part is derived from (2) and (3), meaning that there is a beginning and there is no temporal cause before beginning hence the existence of universe is necessary.

 

[Wesrock]

You already agreed with me that temporal causation is not the only type of causation. There are forms of causation you have not ruled out. You have failed to demonstrate that the universe is uncaused and that it is not contingent.

We also need to go over what it means to have derived existence, what it means to have existence essentially, and what it means for a being’s existence to be the same as its essence. The universe being finite, being material and quantifiable, being composite, being extended, these are all limitations. It is a limited mode of existence, and therefore less than existence. It cannot be said that it’s essence is equivalent to existence.

 

[Wesrock]

When we speak of a necessary being, we mean one who has (and is) existence essentially and not something that has its existence in a derived fashion.

 

[STT]

You already agreed with me that temporal causation is not the only type of causation. There are forms of causation you have not ruled out. You have failed to demonstrate that the universe is uncaused and that it is not contingent.

But we cannot discard or accept ontological cause since we don’t know whether the matter is contingent (illusion) or not (real).

We also need to go over what it means to have derived existence, what it means to have existence essentially, and what it means for a being’s existence to be the same as its essence. The universe being finite, being material and quantifiable, being composite, being extended, these are all limitations. It is a limited mode of existence, and therefore less than existence. It cannot be said that it’s essence is equivalent to existence.

How about the whole? We don’t know whether there are other universes. What if we have infinite finite universes?

 

[EnosJadon]

Something must exist if nothing cannot exist. That thing can only be the universe.

You’ve made one humongous assumption. You’ve assumed that the universe exists, when in fact the only thing that you can be certain exists, is your own mind. Therefore your argument actually is, that the only thing that MUST exist is your own mind.

Before you can argue that the universe must exist, you have to prove that it does exist. Good luck.

 

[STT]

You’ve made one humongous assumption. You’ve assumed that the universe exists, when in fact the only thing that you can be certain exists, is your own mind. Therefore your argument actually is, that the only thing that MUST exist is your own mind.

Before you can argue that the universe must exist, you have to prove that it does exist. Good luck.

Actually I didn’t made a humongous assumption. That is true because of these facts: (1) Universe exists and (2) Nothing cannot exist.

 

[EnosJadon]

Actually I didn’t made a humongous assumption. That is true because of these facts: (1) Universe exists and (2) Nothing cannot exist.

Prove that it exists independent of your mind.

 

[STT]

Prove that it exists independent of your mind.

We all know that cannot be proven. So that is the basic premises.

 

[EnosJadon]

We all know that cannot be proven. So that is the basic premises.

In other words, it’s an assumption.

 

[davidv]

We all know that cannot be proven. So that is the basic premises.

No, if it cannot be proven and is not self evident, then it cannot be a basic premise. This logic 101.

Now, if you want to sell a grand illogical idea, then any unwarranted assumptions can be made. The problem with this is that a logical person will not accept the idea.

 

[STT]

In other words, it’s an assumption.

There is whole literature about this. It is an assumption based on your point view. It is an concrete premises based on another person’s point view.

 

[STT]

No, if it cannot be proven and is not self evident, then it cannot be a basic premise. This logic 101.

It depends on your world view. Some say it is evident (empiricist) and some says it is not (rationalist). I take it granted for the sake of argument.

Now, if you want to sell a grand illogical idea, then any unwarranted assumptions can be made. The problem with this is that a logical person will not accept the idea.

So you are a rationalist?

 

[EnosJadon]

There is whole literature about this. It is an assumption based on your point view. It is an concrete premises based on another person’s point view.

But here’s the problem, the title of this thread is, “Nothing cannot exist…”. But your very first premise is, that something exists. I might just as logically argue that nothing exists, therefore something can’t exist.

One or the other of us have to prove that their position is true. Failing that, neither argument is valid.

 

[Tomdstone]

We refer to nothing as a state of existence, lack of being, prior to beginning (creation point for example). There is however no point before beginning because there is nothing before hence nothing cannot exist. Something must exist if nothing cannot exist. That thing can only be the universe.

How do you know that there is not something else besides the universe that exists?
Also, it appears to be contradictory to say that nothing is a state of existence and then that it does not exist If it does not exist, how can it be a state of existence?
Physicists have an entirely different definition of “nothing”. And you are assuming that the universe had a beginning which is not accepted by many scientists today as I have already mentioned. For those interested in the theory of the cyclic universe, please see:
edge.org/video/the-cyclic-universe-paul-steinhardt
Also, please read:
Endless universe by Paul Steinhardt.
physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf

 

[STT]

But here’s the problem, the title of this thread is, “Nothing cannot exist…”. But your very first premise is, that something exists. I might just as logically argue that nothing exists, therefore something can’t exist.

One or the other of us have to prove that their position is true. Failing that, neither argument is valid.

I should use “The nothing cannot exist” as a title.

 

[STT]

How do you know that there is not something else besides the universe that exists?

We call that thing a part of universe as well.

Also, it appears to be contradictory to say that nothing is a state of existence and then that it does not exist If it does not exist, how can it be a state of existence?

The Nothing to my definition is an empty set. So we can have it as a state of existence. The problem as it is illustrated in OP is related to the fact that the universe exist and there is a beginning. There is however no point before beginning hence we cannot have the nothing.

Physicists have an entirely different definition of “nothing”. And you are assuming that the universe had a beginning which is not accepted by many scientists today as I have already mentioned. For those interested in the theory of the cyclic universe, please see:
edge.org/video/the-cyclic-universe-paul-steinhardt
Also, please read:
Endless universe by Paul Steinhardt.
physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf

I think we already discuss that the eternal universe cannot exist. Cyclic universe is a kind of eternal universe.